Re: one-way sameAs and friendOf links

On 18 July 2012 18:17, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:

> On 7/18/12 11:57 AM, Michiel de Jong wrote:
>
>> I am trying to deal with the authority of sameAs and friendOf links.
>> Of course, if I set up a website and on there claim to be 'sameAs'
>> Bob, then a user search engine should not take that information as
>> authoritative and add the information i publish to Bob's real profile.
>> It should only trust outbound links.
>>
>
> It should do any such thing.
>
> sameAs has semantics. A processor either understands the semantics of such
> relationships or it doesn't. Even better, if it does, reasoning can still
> be optional. That's how its done. Anything less will simply leads to a
> myriad of problems, across the board.
>
>  Same for friendship.
>>
>
> Ditto.
>
> Relationship semantics should either be used or ignored. Manufacturing
> them in this matter is DOA.
>
>
>  If i claim to be a friend of Bob, then the search
>> engine should interpret only that i am 'following' him.
>>
>
> As per comments above, all you can hope for is relationship semantics
> comprehension or incomprehension on the part of a user agent. Following
> that, your left with how the user agent deals with its reality.
>
>
>    Only if Bob
>> links back to me should it be displayed as a bidirectional friendship.
>>
> Yes, that's basically reciprocity .
>
>
>
>> This means we can't just take the "parent" identity as the main row in
>> search results. Because anybody can add a parent to anybody else, and
>> that way hijack their identity.
>>
>
> You are heading back to WebID ACL land. I hope you are seeing that there
> is a reason why relationship semantics that are machine readable ==
> extremely important.
>
> A chunk of data represented by a graph can deliver this clarity on a
> platter once you separate RDF, Linked Data, and Structured Data.
> Relationship semantics isn't exclusive to any of the aforementioned.
> Neither is any particular syntax.
>
>
>
>  But we also don't want to list one
>> person 7 times simply because they have accounts on 7 different
>> services/social tools. I find this a difficult problem to solve.
>>
>
> It a co-reference problem that solved via equivalence by name or
> inverse-functional property based relationships. Again, these issues have
> been analyzed and addressed for a long time. Sadly, the letters "RDF" are
> sometimes introducing a form of expensive cognitive dissonance to those
> that assume its all about RDF/XML and resulting semantic goobledegook or
> yore.
>
> Mistakes from the past have been corrected. I encourage everyone to look
> at the world as it exists today. RDF is a model (EAV + denotative URIs)
> that's loosely associated with RDFS ( which adds more relationship
> semantics covering subclasses, subproperties etc..) and OWL (which adds
> more fine-grained relationship semantics covering: equivalence, symmetry,
> inverses etc..).
>
> My $0.02.
>

+1 sameAs is going to have to become a fact of life, especially for anyone
that chooses to use webfinger ... you should read it as :  entity A is the
same as entity B


>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Michiel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/**blog/~kidehen<http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen>
> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/**112399767740508618350/about<https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about>
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/**kidehen<http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen>
>
>
>
>
>
>